As women have more equal opportunity, the more their preferences differ from men • Hacker News Board

Re: As women have more equal opportunity, the more their preferences differ from men

#401

Post by SolaceQuantum » Mon, Nov 05, 2018, 6:20 PM UTC

ThrustVectoring wrote: post #372

toxik wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You still pay the opportunity cost, even if you are getting a monthly income. Why should I hire the person who was away for a solid year on parental leave over the guy who has been working diligently during that time? Forcing parents to have equal amounts of parental leave, as we do in Sweden (well, we incentivized it,) is a form of imposed equality of outcome. Equality of outcome is often said to be some disease of…

Stop believing feminists when they say they want equality of outcome. They don't - they completely ignore how men die at work at ten times the rate of women, put in more hours, take more competitive roles, and generally tend to make more sacrifices in pursuit of well-paying jobs and careers. Feminists don't want equality of outcome. They want to point at the fact that women make less money as a group than men in orde…

Do you have any evidence of this phenomenon from beginning to end as you describe it? It sounds fascinating.

Re: As women have more equal opportunity, the more their preferences differ from men

#402

Post by Nadya » Mon, Nov 05, 2018, 6:22 PM UTC

aklemm wrote: post #385

leetcrew wrote: post #352

Earlier quoted context omitted.

it's not just unfair to the business though. if i have five years experience as a c++ dev and you have four years plus one year as a stay at home parent, it is unfair to me if the hiring process treats us both as if we have equal amounts of experience.

Is it actually unfair to you that someone put in the appropriate effort needed to raise a functioning member of society? Lot's of people in this thread are failing to value parenting appropriately.

I think it is the opposite. Lot's of people in this thread are conflating parental responsibilities as being somehow equivalent to professional career development.

This is like saying a year of attending a trade school to become a plumber is equivalent to being a first grade teacher for a year.

1 year of experience + 1 year of experience is already more years of experience than 1 year of experience + 1 year of parenting. And it isn't too rare that it becomes 3-5 years of professional experience being more valuable to a company than 1 year of experience + the last 2-4 years of parenting when a parent tries to re-enter the work force.

You either have an impressive resume beforehand or accept that you traded career advancement for having children. Children are a choice and it isn't fair to people who chose not to have kids to further their careers to be brought down to "fair ground" by people who chose to have kids instead of furthering their careers.

Re: As women have more equal opportunity, the more their preferences differ from men

#403

Post by Ari_Ugwu » Mon, Nov 05, 2018, 6:25 PM UTC

ThrustVectoring wrote: post #372

toxik wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You still pay the opportunity cost, even if you are getting a monthly income. Why should I hire the person who was away for a solid year on parental leave over the guy who has been working diligently during that time? Forcing parents to have equal amounts of parental leave, as we do in Sweden (well, we incentivized it,) is a form of imposed equality of outcome. Equality of outcome is often said to be some disease of…

Stop believing feminists when they say they want equality of outcome. They don't - they completely ignore how men die at work at ten times the rate of women, put in more hours, take more competitive roles, and generally tend to make more sacrifices in pursuit of well-paying jobs and careers. Feminists don't want equality of outcome. They want to point at the fact that women make less money as a group than men in orde…

What if I don't stop believing them?

Your comment is written in such an off putting manner that I wonder if it must be satire.

You've dictated, generalized, and disparaged with every sentence.

Even if I wanted to agree with the presentation is so ugly that I recoil.

Re: As women have more equal opportunity, the more their preferences differ from men

#404

Post by mamon » Mon, Nov 05, 2018, 6:25 PM UTC

aklemm wrote: post #385

leetcrew wrote: post #352

Earlier quoted context omitted.

it's not just unfair to the business though. if i have five years experience as a c++ dev and you have four years plus one year as a stay at home parent, it is unfair to me if the hiring process treats us both as if we have equal amounts of experience.

Is it actually unfair to you that someone put in the appropriate effort needed to raise a functioning member of society? Lot's of people in this thread are failing to value parenting appropriately.

But the business is not hiring them to "raise a functioning member of the society", it's hiring to fill the role of c++ dev. Your one year at home with child might count as "work experience" if you were applying for a job as kindergarten teacher, but for other jobs it is a disadvantage.

Re: As women have more equal opportunity, the more their preferences differ from men

#405

Post by [deleted] » Mon, Nov 05, 2018, 6:27 PM UTC

toxik wrote: post #192

msh wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know that book, but it's wrong on childcare being less affordable. Atleast in Denmark and Sweden child care is heavily subsidized, to the point of being free for very low income parents (in dk). So there is no way it can make economic sense for mothers not to work. And stay at home moms (for more than 1-2 years) is rare compared to the USA.

You still pay the opportunity cost, even if you are getting a monthly income. Why should I hire the person who was away for a solid year on parental leave over the guy who has been working diligently during that time? Forcing parents to have equal amounts of parental leave, as we do in Sweden (well, we incentivized it,) is a form of imposed equality of outcome. Equality of outcome is often said to be some disease of…

[deleted]

Re: As women have more equal opportunity, the more their preferences differ from men

#406

Post by anon12345690 » Mon, Nov 05, 2018, 6:29 PM UTC

antt wrote: post #164

grenoire wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, the difference for the CPU analogy might be that we know exactly what to have them do, and they do exactly that (sans bugs, hah). Brains, whether it's architectural or hormonal, have many other factors that influence their workings, and aren't necessarily deterministically programmable as processors are.

I would like some evidence that under normal [0] circumstances brains which look different act different. So far it sounds like phrenology at best and racist demagoguery at worst when you compare black brains to white brains instead of female to male [1]. I don't understand how someone who would (probably) call themselves progressive can use reheated talking points from 18th century eugenicists without noticing a pro…

Try this: https://stanmed.stanford.edu/2017spring/how-mens-and-womens-...

Re: As women have more equal opportunity, the more their preferences differ from men

#407

Post by apatters » Mon, Nov 05, 2018, 6:33 PM UTC

claudiawerner wrote: post #382

apatters wrote: post #371

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your two comments don't really answer the question I posed. The first one denigrates it and attempts to outsource the task of answering it to Reddit. The second one is, I guess, mostly a recitation of various things feminists have done or not done in relation to this question, among other issues. But nowhere do you make a clear statement about whether you would advocate for pushing women into these jobs, and why or w…

I didn't know the question applied to me personally. I'm not entirely sure myself, which is why I gave various reasons (some conflicting) for what other feminists think. I'm not even sure I'd advocate 'pushing' women anywhere, I think that we should try and counter bias that may set in from society or parents from a young age, and also make clear that various opportunities are available to all, including opportunitie…

That's a fair response, thanks.

I used the word 'push' because I was responding to a comment which identified 50/50 representation in all occupations as potentially a reasonable goal. It would surely take a big push to achieve gender parity in garbage collection, which is 99% male in the US!

Re: As women have more equal opportunity, the more their preferences differ from men

#408

Post by tathougies » Mon, Nov 05, 2018, 6:34 PM UTC

faceplanted wrote: post #115

grenoire wrote: post #31

This follows a series of validation studies (incl. e.g. http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0956797617741719 ) from this year especially. The results seem to consistently show the same 'paradoxical' outcome. J. Peterson came to my campus last week and I think he mentioned this one specific study, and also noted several other ones, which brought the one I linked to my attention. It really isn't the only one, a…

Is Jordan Peterson any better in person than he seems in his book? I read it after a friend recommended it and he seemed completely insufferable and possibly mildly autistic based on what seemed like a real lack of understanding of the internal lives of others. Lots of people seem to like him, but I can't bring myself to watch him speak in person since everything I see just traversing the internet is framed as him "d…

> possibly mildly autistic

Is having mild autism a bad thing? Why?

By itself, stating that someone may be 'mildly autistic' has no bearing on the validity of their ideas.

Re: As women have more equal opportunity, the more their preferences differ from men

#409

Post by Ari_Ugwu » Mon, Nov 05, 2018, 6:36 PM UTC

sokoloff wrote: post #389

BeetleB wrote: post #289

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Do YOU want to have surgery from a surgeon that hasn't performed in year? There can be something like a transition period. The world is not binary. Surgeons get sick. They get injured. They take time off. Just like everyone else. The reason they took time off should not be relevant.

The reason should not be relevant. The fact that they did could be (in some cases), IMO.

Many people here have echoed the fears and complaints I've heard on this topic. Simply that somehow taking parental leave at all puts you at a disadvantage. Or puts you in a position where you have to explain yourself.

I feel like what is being done here is to [ironically] force an equality of outcome on every metric _except_ the one that swings the argument.

The very nature of equality of _opportunity_ means to me that it doesn't matter at all that I took time off. Am I qualified? Do I have demonstrable expertise? References? Education? A unique perspective?

You may be generally curious about my year off but the idea that it somehow invalidates _any_ of my other qualifications feels silly and limits my opportunity based on external factors which don't impact my ability to do the job. It's just that you don't seem to fit the world view of others so it's suspect.

_This_ is the complaint: that a talented professional coming back to the work force loses out not because of ability but because of violating social norms.

Re: As women have more equal opportunity, the more their preferences differ from men

#410

Post by KirinDave » Mon, Nov 05, 2018, 6:38 PM UTC

dijit wrote: post #290

KirinDave wrote: post #255

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I agree with your skepticism, but it's important not to fall back on the other end : i.e., "I know there's no difference between men and women therefore the policies are wrong !" An awful lot of women have negative things to say about that situation, so maybe I should just quote them? I don't think I am falling back on the "other side" here. I'm pointing out that the effectiveness of these measures seems quite low…

FWIW, I upvoted your grand-parent comment but downvoted this. People are trying to have an open discussion here, and I agree that we should keep as open a mind as possible. Part of that precludes the notion of falling back into another ideology, which the parent to this comment is warning about. They are not blaming you of doing it, just warning. There exists many theories as to why this is happening, we should ident…

I'm confused. Can you identify where I didn't do that in the comment that you decided to disagree-by-downvoting?

I'm quite tired of being warned of drawing conclusions I did not draw, while taking 10-15 karma point penalties. From my perspective, I'm receiving overwhelming feedback that even questioning these programs at the level of efficacy is unwanted and I should be silenced.

I can't really work out how these votes are actually reflective of a disruptive presence in the conversation, unless the idea is to avoid asking that question in any capacity.

> There exists many theories as to why this is happening, we should identify the data we have and determine the most plausible theories based on evidence and research. That's the only rational way forward.

Then I find your response to be disappointing. If the goal is an open debate, shouldn't we actually question these base assertions that underly and inform the statistical machinery of the study?